INTERNACIONAL
Trump flag burning executive order could flip First Amendment on its head with new court
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump and his administration are likely set to challenge a Supreme Court ruling that protected the burning of the American flag under the First Amendment with a new executive order calling for those who desecrate the U.S. flag while inciting violence or breaking other laws to face prosecution.
The executive order, which Trump signed Monday morning, directs the attorney general to prosecute those who violate laws «in ways that involve desecrating the flag,» and to pursue litigation that would clarify the scope of the First Amendment as it relates to flag desecration.
Burning the American flag, however, already has been litigated, with the Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that burning the flag is a form of symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
«I think what the president is saying, is that he’s ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi, Justice Department lawyers to prosecute those who maliciously burn an American flag,» senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies told Fox News Digital Monday. «And what that would essentially do is tee up a challenge eventually for the Supreme Court to revisit and potentially overturn its prior precedent saying that burning an American flag is protected speech.»
TRUMP TO CRACK DOWN ON FLAG BURNING, DESECRATION WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Aug. 25, 2025, cracking down on suspects who desecrate the American flag. (Getty Images)
The 1989 case was centered on political protester Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the American flag in 1984 outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas in protest of President Ronald Reagan’s re-election.
«America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you,» protesters chanted as Johnson lit the flag on fire, according to details in the case, called Texas v. Johnson.
Johnson was charged under the Texas Venerated Objects Statute, a state law that prevented individuals from vandalizing respected objects such as the U.S. flag. Johnson was found guilty in 1985 and sentenced to one year behind bars and a $2,000 fine, but appealed the ruling.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1989, with the nation’s highest court ruling in a 5–4 decision that burning the American flag was protected speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held a conservative majority at the time.
TRUMP’S RENEWED CALLS TO JAIL AMERICAN FLAG BURNERS CLASHES WITH COURT PRECEDENT
Justice William J. Brennan, a Democrat nominated by former President Dwight Eisenhower, issued the majority opinion, and argued «that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.»
«We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one’s own, no better way to counter a flag-burner’s message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by — as one witness here did — according its remains a respectful burial,» the majority opinion read. «We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represent.»
President Trump’s American flag executive order calls on the attorney general to use «the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution» to «vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag.» (spxChrome)
Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined Brennan in the majority opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the court’s dissenting opinion, arguing that the American flag holds a unique status in the U.S. that should protect it from acts such as burning.
In 1990, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling the year prior, while invalidating Congress’ Flag Protection Act of 1989, which lawmakers passed in response to the Supreme Court’s Texas v. Johnson ruling.
Trump’s Monday executive order calls on the attorney general specifically to launch legal efforts to clarify «the scope of the First Amendment.»
TRUMP VOWS CONSEQUENCES FOR ‘ANIMALS’ BURNING AMERICAN FLAGS IN LA, SLAMS THOSE WAVING OTHER COUNTRIES’ FLAGS
The executive order states: «To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.»
Back in 2003, current Justice Clarence Thomas provided some insight into where he stands with the burning of venerated objects, offering a dissenting opinion in the case Virginia v. Black on the burning of crosses.
Thomas cited Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in the Texas v. Johnson case in his 2003 dissenting opinion on cross-burning.
«In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred, see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 422-429 (1989) (REHNQUIST, C. J., dissenting) (describing the unique position of the American flag in our Nation’s 200 years of history), and the profane. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic example of the latter,» he wrote in 2003.
President Trump’s executive order on flag desecration calls on the attorney general, Pam Bondi, to launch legal efforts to clarify «the scope of the First Amendment.» (Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Smith pointed to two dynamics to watch out for with regard to a potential flag-burning case landing on Supreme Court’s docket in the future: that some justices have expressed «some concern that potentially expressive conduct has been read too broadly,» and how the justices will apply stare decisis, which is legal doctrine outlining courts should follow established precedents, such as the 1989 ruling.
«I think a couple of things are happening here,» he said. «I think some justices have expressed some concern that potentially expressive conduct has been read too broadly. Things that are really conduct, not speech, have been read to be protected, and maybe they should not be protected, as protected as they have been in the past.»
TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO ELIMINATE NO-CASH BAIL FOR SUSPECTS IN DC AND NATIONWIDE
«The other interesting dynamic, I think that you should watch for, is how certain justices will apply what’s known as stare decisis, and essentially that’s the fancy Latin term. It means that ‘they decided,’» Smith continued. «Several times recently, Chief Justice Roberts in particular, has said that even though he disagrees on the merits with the … decision the Supreme Court is reaching, he has joined the majority anyway because he believes stare decisis should apply and the court should not overturn or revisit its previous decisions in this area. Even though he may subsequently disagree with it.»
Trump celebrated the executive order during the Monday signing ceremony in the Oval Office, saying the 1989 Supreme Court ruling protecting flag burning was made by a «very sad court.»
«Flag burning. All over the country, they’re burning flags. All over the world, they burn the American flag,» he said. «And as you know, through a very sad court, I guess there was a 5 to 4 decision. They called it freedom of speech.»
President Donald Trump lamented how U.S. flags have been burned by protests on U.S. soil and abroad. (Mark Schiefelbein/The Associated Press)
«But there’s another reason, which is perhaps much more important,» he said. «It’s called death. Because what happens when you burn a flag is the area goes crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy.»
«You could do other things. You can burn this piece of paper,» he said. «But when you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we’ve never seen before.»
First Amendment groups such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression slammed the executive order in comment provided to Fox News Digital, saying Trump does not have the «power to revise the First Amendment with the stroke of a pen.»
«Flag burning as a form of political protest is protected by the First Amendment,» Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere said in Monday comment. «That’s nothing new. While people can be prosecuted for burning anything in a place they aren’t allowed to set fires, the government can’t prosecute protected expressive activity — even if many Americans, including the president, find it «uniquely offensive and provocative.»
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
«You don’t have to like flag burning,» he added. «You can condemn it, debate it, or hoist your own flag even higher. The beauty of free speech is that you get to express your opinions, even if others don’t like what you have to say,.»
white house,first amendment,donald trump,supreme court
INTERNACIONAL
Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Since there was such a tempest over Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show, perhaps there’s a solution at hand. This compromise would satisfy both red and blue America. And the exhibition would transfix the country: Have former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump testify at halftime about the Epstein files.
Republicans believe former President Clinton has something to hide about Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats think the same about President Trump. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the former president and Hillary Clinton to testify about the Epstein files. After a lot of wrangling, the Clintons are due to appear for closed-door depositions later this month.
But both Bill and Hillary Clinton are now calling for open sessions. And Democrats believe that such an appearance at a public session — by a former President — would establish a precedent to lug in President Trump to answer questions about what he knew about Epstein.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL TO APPEAR BEFORE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE LAWMAKERS FOR EPSTEIN PROBE DEPOSITION
Hillary Clinton addresses her staff and supporters about the results of the U.S. election as her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, applauds at a hotel in the Manhattan borough of New York, Nov. 9, 2016. (Reuters/Carlos Barria)
One architect of the law compelling the release of the Epstein files, applauded demands last week by the former First Couple to testify at a televised open hearing. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the former president is an important witness.
«As long as [the hearing is] focused on Epstein, and it’s not a wild goose chase — it’s not trying to score political points or embarrass either President Clinton or President Trump, it is asking legitimate questions about what they knew took place and who they knew were participating in heinous acts,» said Khanna. «That should be a legitimate point of inquiry.»
After agreeing to a closed-door deposition later this month, Hillary Clinton took to X. She wrote to Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., saying, «If you want this fight let’s have it in public.»
Former President Clinton echoed his wife the next day on X, also calling for a public session. The former commander-in-chief declared that he won’t be used «as a prop in a closed door Kangaroo Court.»
A spokeswoman for Comer accused the former first couple of «moving the goalposts.» Comer was always open to a hearing. But after a closed-door deposition.
«Depositions have historically been much more substantive than hearings,» said Comer. «Hearings unfortunately, have become more of an entertainment thing.»
It’s hard to track exactly what the Clintons wanted.
The House Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis last August to subpoena both Bill and Hillary Clinton for depositions — along with a host of other prominent figures like former Attorney General Bill Barr. After a lot of haggling, the committee subpoenaed them to appear at dates in October. The Clintons defied those. Then the committee assigned them dates just before Christmas. But neither showed then because of a funeral. The committee requested that the Clintons give them dates for January appearances. They didn’t. The committee then assigned them additional dates for January testimony. They skipped out on those. That’s when Comer threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they didn’t appear in January. The Oversight Committee voted — in bipartisan fashion — for contempt. The House Rules Committee planned last week to prep a measure to force the entire House to vote on contempt — and send criminal referrals for the Clintons to the Justice Department for prosecution after they defied the subpoenas.
REVEALED: TRUMP CALLED POLICE CHIEF TO SUPPORT EPSTEIN PROBE, AND LAWMAKERS NAMED 6 MEN SHIELDED FROM EXPOSURE
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., alongside Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., left, speaks to reporters after a closed-door deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and confidante of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
But the Clintons finally agreed to depositions at the end of this month. And once that was on the calendar, the duo began calling for public hearings.
There is a method behind this madness. There isn’t a loyalty among younger Congressional Democrats to the Clintons. In fact, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was steamed at some Democrats for wanting the Clintons to appear. Younger Democrats don’t have the same reverence for the Clintons as older Democrats. Hillary Clinton ran for president a decade ago. She hasn’t been a senator since 2009. She last served as Secretary of State in early 2013. President Clinton left the Oval Office more than a quarter-century ago.
However, this is the Democrats’ gambit:
If former President Clinton appears about the Epstein files, it may be tough to make the case that President Trump shouldn’t appear.
«Certainly it does set the precedent. President Trump was subpoenaed during the January 6th investigations and didn’t come in. He cited some form of executive privilege. And so we’re kind of forcing the Clintons to come in with the threat of criminal contempt. Then that is a precedent that we are setting,» said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va. «In other countries, like the UK, the Prime Minister regularly comes before the Parliament. And so it’s not like it’s unprecedented around the world.»
Granted, that’s a parliamentary system where the prime minister is a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer regularly appears for «Prime Minister’s Questions» every Wednesday at noon in London. Members of Parliament usually pepper the prime minister with questions and scoff in a scene which resembles something out of Monty Python.
But the American and British systems are fundamentally different.
Getting a sitting or former President — and even first lady — before Congress is rare but not unheard of.
BONDI TO FACE GRILLING IN HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OVER EPSTEIN FILES, WEAPONIZATION ALLEGATIONS
Former President Bill Clinton was seen in photos with Jeffrey Epstein as part of a DOJ Epstein files release on Friday, Dec. 19. (Department of Justice)
There are three prominent examples of sitting Presidents appearing before Congress. President Abraham Lincoln testified voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in 1862. The New York Herald published his «State of the Union» message to Congress just before it was sent to Capitol Hill. Presidents sent written «reports» in those days. They did not give speeches to Congress. Lawmakers probed the leak of the message to Congress. It was speculated that Herald reporter Henry Wikoff got the message ahead of time thanks to his friendship with Mary Todd Lincoln. The House Sergeant at Arms briefly held Wikoff — and released him after the president spoke to the Judiciary Committee.
President Woodrow Wilson appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919 to discuss a treaty with Germany and establishing the League of Nations. Wilson’s push for the League of Nations failed. The Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles.
President Gerald Ford had been in office two-and-a-half months before he appeared voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1974. Ford told lawmakers that his pardon of former President Richard Nixon wasn’t something they bargained about. Ford told the committee that he pardoned Nixon because his physical and mental health fell into a steep decline.
Former President Harry Truman appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1955 to testify about the United Nations Charter.
Ford came back as a former president in 1983 for a Senate hearing on the bicentennial of the Constitution.
And there are examples of both sitting and former first ladies testifying, too.
Eleanor Roosevelt testified twice as first lady. Once about labor issues. Then, about the organization of volunteers for the civilian defense agency before World War II.
Rosalynn Carter testified about mental health as first lady.
Hillary Clinton famously testified about her husband’s health care plan — even though it was dubbed (often derisively) «Hillarycare» in the fall of 1993. She testified multiple times as Secretary of State. Most notably in early 2013 regarding Benghazi.
And, first lady Laura Bush was en route to Capitol Hill to testify before a Senate panel about early childhood education on 9/11. The committee cancelled the hearing after the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
So, many Republicans are game to hear from the Clintons about the Epstein files. Frankly, some were more interested in just holding them in contempt than actually gleaning anything about Epstein. But it looks like the Clintons will at least sit for depositions in a few weeks. Whether there’s a hearing or not is unclear. Some Republicans may even push for that. But caveat emptor. An open session for the Clintons will only intensify the push by Democrats — and some GOPers — to hear from President Trump.
Their testimony might not come during the Super Bowl halftime show. But open testimony by a former President and a sitting President would be a political Super Bowl.
politics,the clintons,jeffrey epstein,republicans,house of representatives politics,congress,william barr
INTERNACIONAL
México dice que la munición incautada a un cártel es de una fábrica del ejército de EE.UU.
Defensas
Reclamo
INTERNACIONAL
Russian attack on Kharkiv wipes out young family, leaving pregnant mother as sole survivor
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Russian drone strike Tuesday night in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region wiped out a young family, killing a father and his three small children, leaving a pregnant mother as the sole survivor.
Oleg Synegubov, the governor of the Kharkiv region, said on Telegram that the attack on the town of Bohodukhiv claimed the lives of 34-year-old Grigory and his three children — 2-year-old twin boys, Ivan and Vladyslav, and their 1-year-old sister Myroslava.
The family had just evacuated from Zolochiv, a front-line town about 25 miles from the Russian border, in an effort to escape persistent shelling.
They were spending their first night in their new home when the strike occurred, Synegubov said.
‘ONLY TRUMP CAN STOP RUSSIA’: MILLIONS FACE FREEZING WINTER, UKRAINE ENERGY EXECUTIVE WARNS
The aftermath of a drone attack in the city of Bohodukhiv in the Kharkiv region that killed four people, including three children, in Bohodukhiv, Ukraine, on Feb. 11, 2026. (Carlo Bravo/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Olga, the children’s 35-year-old mother who is 35 weeks pregnant, survived with injuries and minor burns and was later discharged from the hospital after receiving medical care.
«The Russian army once again targeted an ordinary residential building in the middle of the night,» said Synegubov. «Another terrorist act of the state fighting against the civilian population – against small children, pregnant women, elderly people.»
The Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office said preliminary data indicates that a «Geran-2» drone was used in the attack.
RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL SHOT IN MOSCOW: REPORT
A resident touches a Russian-Iranian Shahed-136 (Geran-2) kamikaze drone installed in front of Saint Michael’s Cathedral as part of an exhibition displaying destroyed Russian military vehicles and weapons, in Kyiv, Ukraine, Nov. 26, 2025. (Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters)
The Geran-2 is the Russian designation for an Iranian-designed Shahed-136, a one-way attack drone that detonates on impact and has been widely used by Moscow to strike Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
KENYA DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM RUSSIA OVER RECRUITMENT OF CITIZENS TO FIGHT IN UKRAINE WAR
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Wednesday in a post on X that Russian forces carried out additional strikes across border and frontline regions, including launching 470 attack drones at Kherson in a single day.
Damaged buildings and debris are seen after a drone attack in the city of Bohodukhiv in the Kharkiv region on Feb. 11, 2026. (Carlo Bravo/Anadolu via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
«Gas supply restoration is ongoing in the Donetsk region – also following a Russian strike. There were strikes on infrastructure in the Dnipro region, in the Synelnykove district,» he wrote. «Some consumers are currently without electricity in Zaporizhzhia after ‘shahed’ strikes – restoration work is underway.»
Zelenskyy said he directed military and community leaders to develop additional measures to strengthen protection for critical infrastructure.
ukraine,russia,drones
Saltan las alarmas con Cucurella: también lesionado
Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas
Marcha de la CGT, en vivo: las columnas sindicales comienzan a llegar al Congreso
México dice que la munición incautada a un cártel es de una fábrica del ejército de EE.UU.
Durante el receso legislativo, Milei dictó casi tantos DNU como todas las leyes promulgadas a lo largo de 2025
Russian attack on Kharkiv wipes out young family, leaving pregnant mother as sole survivor
El sector industrial advierte que la apertura económica exige eliminar las distorsiones internas
Mirtha Legrand se quebró desconsolada al hablar de la renuncia de Jimena Monteverde a su mesaza
Acuartelamiento policial en Santa Fe: reclamo salarial y temor a un conflicto nacional de seguridad
Mercados: subió la Bolsa argentina y cortó una serie negativa de siete ruedas consecutivas
POLITICA1 día agoAcuartelamiento policial en Santa Fe: reclamo salarial y temor a un conflicto nacional de seguridad
- POLITICA1 día ago
La advertencia de ATE a los gobernadores que apoyan la reforma laboral: “Firmarán su sentencia de muerte”
- ECONOMIA1 día ago
Cuánto le cuesta a la clase media llenar el changuito y cómo varían los precios de los alimentos entre provincias
